Positioning

A postscript to my last entry on brands: The New York Times article on John McCain drew a strong rebuke from the candidate because the article attacked his brand identity. Specifically, McCain has crafted a perception of being a straight-talker and anti-special interests. The charges in the Times article intimated he was compromised on some issues involving lobbyists. Unfotunately for McCain the charges were based on gossip mostly. Still, he had to respond so that the news would not diminish his brand.

Now another business application in the political discourse and practice is positioning. Candidates like products do not exist in a vacuum and thus do not have absolute characteristics. Instead they are judged against other products. Candidates try to gain and hold a position in the minds of voters that will be winning. In the Republican race we saw a lot of positioning.

First, Mitt Romney spent millions to position himself as a traditional, Reagan Republican. This was a bit of challenge given that Romney record as governor of Massachussets was not purely conservative. Still, he chose this strategy wisely given that his strongest competitors in early 2007 were Rudy Guliani and John McCain--both not easily associated with conservative. Romney wanted to be a first mover into a position that was not only apprently vacant but often a winning one for republican voters. (Fred Thompson came in late to the race in part because he felt that a true conservative was missing in the race.)

On the Democratic side, Barrack Obama has been pretty successful in postioning himself as a candidate of change. This has been a consistent message to the point that he owns this position in the minds of voters (not just Democrats). Hillary Clinton has been less (but somewhat) successful in establishing the "experience" position. To the degree that she has been successful with this position it appears to be less appealing to the change message. Plus, she has tended to push this position less as consistent strategy than as reactive tactical plays to Obama.

Of course, positions are often only as good as the candidates (just the same as a product). Obama could be expert at establishing his postion but I doubt he could overcome as well a branded and financed candidate as Clinton unless he was also a very good candidate. I suspect that had Romney been as good (captivating a speaker) he could have won the Republican side (or to say another way--if he had been really Reaganesque he could have prevailed over McCain). But it still is important to be well postioned. Mike Huckabee is a great candidate like Obama, but he is not nearly as well positioned, as Huckabee is branded in a relatively small niche of evangelical voters.

Brands III

Candidates have brands, too. These brands can be doubled-edged swords. Hillary Clinton rode to her dominant position in the current presidential race on the strength of the “Clinton” brand. Her recent troubles, however, may also be attributed at least in part on the Clinton name. As with many products, candidates look for mass appeal, not just certain segments. A strong brand identity can trap a candidate or product into a niche. Toyota’s brand carries an image of great value at low cost, so when it wanted to compete in the market for luxury cars it didn’t use the Toyota brand, but created a new one, Lexus. Hillary Clinton has a harder time changing her brand (see her campaign materials such as the picture to the left and you will see the Clinton name absent). She is trying to create a more distinct “Hillary” brand.

John McCain will have same challenges. He has made his brand on being a Maverick and straight talker. This brand causes him problems with many of the people in his own party. In today’s New York Times, an article attacks McCain’s brand image by “reporting” on some potential relationships with lobbyists. McCain has come out strong to discredit these charges – even as he must work to expand the value proposition to a mass audience, he must also protect his brand.

Obama now seems to have an advantage in the branding race. Starting with the significant disadvantage of all new entrants—lack of name recognition, he has been able to leverage the one advantage the new entrant has: no already established brand expectations. He has been able to create his own brand identity from scratch and he smartly has done it by appealing to a broad consumer base. In politics there are many niche players; previously African American candidates tended to appeal to minority audiences. Obama has made a distinct effort to not do that. He has built a brand that speaks broadly and has mass appeal. It will be interesting to see if there is enough substance behind the image to hold through November.

In both business and politics a brand image is necessary but not sufficient. That is, people must know who you are and have expectations of what you will deliver (quality, price, luxury, etc.). But it has to be delivered as well, or the company, product, or candidate will be no more than a fad or flash in the pan.

Brands Continued

The republican brand from 1980 through 2006 was no doubt dominant. Bill Clinton, the only democratic president during this time won primarily by coopting some of the brand values of limited government. Clinton also benefited when George H.W. Bush defied his party’s brand identity by raising taxes, drawing the ire of his own consumers.

So what has happened to the republican brand since 1994? It has continually lost value to the point that the republicans lost their market share lead in the 2006 congressional elections. While taxes are still an issue in that people like to pay less, they are less of one as other issues like health care and the environment crowd them out (and some believe that we may have reached equilibrium on taxes).

Brands can get tired if the value proposition no longer holds or there is brand confusion. As much as the value proposition of cutting taxes got old and tired (see this recent article on taxes and the brand), the brand dilution was cemented by the product not living up to its acclaimed values. Many republican party consumers did not see the party living up to its value of limited government—in fact, the party is now viewed as being as eager to spend as its opponents. This recent article illustrates this. While reputation can carry a brand for some time, once the brand value is lost it is hard to get back. For example, some companies like Sprint have suffered recently from poor customer service—it will take great effort to turn this around.

Brands

It is a political year so a discussion of politics and business is appropriate. In the political discourse you will often hear business terms used. Among the most commonly used are brand and positioning. First, let’s explore the use of branding in politics.

Since our first president and political parties emerged, these parties have taken on brand identities. These identities are closely related to positioning—something I will discuss separately—but it is important to know that brands have value. Consider Apple, Corporation and the brand value it has built over the years. Because of its brand, people are willing to pay a premium for their MP3 players and other products. Companies make explicit efforts to build a brand that conveys perceived value to consumers. The band must be both known and be associated with something having value (i.e., cool, slick electronic devices).

In the case of the political parties they already have known brands (have name recognition). They must, however, work to develop perceived value or offer a value proposition that attracts a broad coalition of voters. The Republican Party over the last 50 years is a good example. In the early 1960s republicans were mostly indistinguishable to the Democratic Party. This is a bad place to be if you are clearly in a market share deficit as they were at that time (they were K-Mart to the Democrats Wal-Mart).

Today, many pundits refer to the Reagan revolution that was started by Goldwater in 1964 and continued in 1980 with Reagan’s election and then culminated in 1994 under Gingrich. Reagan helped create a new coalition of fiscal conservatives (sometimes called blue dog democrats), social conservatives, and libertarians and created a new brand that effectively differentiated the parties. The value proposition of the new Republican Party was limited government, strong defense to defeat communism, and tax cuts. This vaulted the part from a decidedly minority party to a majority party by 1994. Over this period republicans worked diligently to create a specific brand image. So what has happened since?

The Business of Politics

Another night of elections -- the Potomoc primaries tonight. If you like politics, this presidental primary season has been more interesting than usual with both parties holding competitive contests. I have always been interested in politics since I was in grade school and followed my first presidential election season: Nixon-Humphrey 40 years ago.

Well, politics borrows some of its terms from business (or vice versa). I will use this space to talk about two particular ones that critically important to both companies that conduct businesses and political campaigns.

One Young Soldier

Many people once they get to be my age think they have it in them to write a book--certainly we are old enough to have experienced something and studied something worth writing about. But most of us don't do it because writing a book takes long term commitment that must compete with the daily responsiblities (and distractions) that engulf us. But some people with regular jobs and families do find time to write a book.


Earlier this week, one of our long-time adjunct professors in the Helzberg School, Gary DeRigne, had a book signing for his first novel, One Young Soldier. Gary says that it is mosly a memoir of his experience serving in Vietnam. I was happy to receive a copy and happier still to have my proceeds for the book be designated to the Wounded Warriers charity. I guess it was appropriate that Gary who teaches corporate social responsbility for Rockhurst would think of such gesture.


One of the strengths of Rockhurst, especially in the Helzberg School, has long been its adjunct factuly. Gary is an IT professional in our community who not only uses his non-work time to write books, but teaches courses for Rockhurst. Adjuncts are a strength because they are real business professionals who can bring that practicing expertise into the classroom. Ironically, in working with adjuncts for over a decade I have found they are most interested in their role as teacher and anxious to learn how to be a better teacher and not simply a talking head expert.

Another thing I have learned from adjucts is that they get immense satisfaction in the classroom. In fact, some of our fulltime faculty started out as adjuncts. When I asked Gary how he likes writing, he said he likes it enough he wants to do more of it--seems this can get in your blood, too. Best of luck Gary with your next book.